Apple unveils Intel-based MacBook notebooks - Page 5

Originally posted by minderbinder
What's missing that doesn't replace the powerbook? Integrated graphics? What, so you can play first person shooters as part of your "pro" work? This is a killer machine and a big improvement over BOTH machines it's replacing.

hey don't get me wrong, the MB is a great product! i'm just having a x8 SuperDrive, 80GB, 1.25GB ram n a slightly lighter lappie that doesn't really warrant me an immediate upgrade that's all.

Seriously. Who cares about dedicated graphics cards. If you need that, you'll probably be getting a macbook pro b/c of the bigger screen anyways. Honestly, integrated graphics are fine. They save on power too. I'd take that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vox BarbaraWell, there is no need to whine about the integrated graphics
anymore. Really, i saw the new mini in action and guess what,
the graphics are pretty fast, faster than former graphic chip
on par at least. Though, i didn't try 3D gaming.
But if you are in 3D gaming, than you shouldn't consider
Macs anyway.

Btw, congrats apple, beautyful job indeed.

David W.The University of Texas at AustinMechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairswww.davidwogan.us

Obviously, black is more desirable or else you would not care about the premium price for black. You kind of answered your own question here - the fact that you are upset means that they were right to charge a premium for black.

Originally posted by solsunDoes anyone know if the MacBook will power a 30" inch display at 1920*1200 resolution?

Actually that should work just fine. As far as i can tell Dual Link is not required to run the 30", its only required to hit the max res. The iBook cannot run the 30" at max res (2560x1600) but it shouldnt have any problems running it at 1920x1200.

Originally posted by retiariusalso, the padding is to help handle complaints and/or the higher return rate
from whiners who demand that the inevitable scratches be only as visible
as with white units. reflection physics at work...

The MB's are matte black, so surface scratches should not be a problem like they are with the gloss black of iPod.

I'm pretty impressed with these. I'd certainly pay the extra $200 for the black version. It's my favourite (non) colour. I used to have a PB 3400 years ago which I loved dearly.

Now I have to weigh up the pros and cons of selling my Aluminium Powerbook so I can get some real speed happening. Not to mention double checking to see if all the apps I need to use are Universal Binaries yet or not.

Originally posted by minderbinderBut it makes sense for Apple to drop products that have low demand. Reportedly, the 12" powerbook didn't sell nearly as well as the ibooks or the other powerbooks. Most consumers thought it was too similar to the ibook and just went with that cheaper option.

Choices are great, but they should stick with the options that people are interested and shouldn't waste time and money carrying configs that are unpopular.

I could not disagree more.

Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?

Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.

I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.

e.g:

1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?

2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)

3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)

The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.

Originally posted by Mr. H
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%).

Market share is important but Apple's core competencies do not appear to be geared toward capturing (and holding) large share against companies like Dell or HP.

Quote:

When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?

They took large risks to capture share under Sculley. Execution was poor but at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?

Or is it better to look for new markets?

Quote:

Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.

While I'll agree that Apple could afford to make an ultraportable and perhaps a desktop replacement I don't know that I would agree that Apple can afford models that don't sell well.

I'd like a tablet too but I'm not holding my breath. I'd much rather see a tablet done well than a desktop replacement that will not be very mac like in style/function.

1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?

Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.

If they are shooting for elite branding why offer cheaper models? To chase share?

Arguably they are able to maintain a community of developers at current share levels for the markets they most care about.

Quote:

3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)

Economies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?

Quote:

The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.

I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.

Originally posted by vineaThey took large risks to capture share under Sculley.

That was when their market share was nearer 10% IIRC. I'm talking about upping share from below 3% and permanantely reversing years of decline, which is much more important.

Quote:

Originally posted by vineabut at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?

If you are Dell or HP, no. If you are Apple, yes. (As Apple's margins are very high, but Dell's is low and couldn't go much lower. To increase their market share, Apple needs to go after some of the market that Dell has captured, and for Dell to increase share, they need to go after some of the market that Apple has captured. Which one of these has more potential to add significantly to the respective company's revenue and market share?)

Quote:

Originally posted by vineaEconomies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?

I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.

Vinea

Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled.

Originally posted by vinea
Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.

Not true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.

Originally posted by backtomacNot true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.

My suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.

Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.

All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.

All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.

The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.

Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.

I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.

Apple has a bead on the pent-up demand for the MacBook. Releasing only Core Duos at the 1099/1299/1499 price points will allow them to capture the premium for those who've been waiting, especially since Apple likes to limit its manufacturing risk.

Two possibilities:
1. Apple has plans for the future that really require users to have Core Duos. So rather than obsolete a Core Solo version within a year, they're going to stay higher-end. (Apple believes the buyers of the mini Core Solo at 599 will understand that their Mac will not do whatever, and be willing to buy another.)

2. Apple will release a cheaper, less capable machine once the iBook/MacBook demand dies down. Possibly in October for Christmas.

Finally, Apple's preferred route for those who want a cheaper Mac is to direct them to refurbished or clearance (old model) Macs from the Apple Store or through some vendors.

Integrated graphics are for lack of a better term suck butt, a handicap. Its funny how the worst graphics in the industry became Ok after apple started using the cheap chip. I bet they give these things away to apple for buying Intel cpu's. If you even think you like to game forget any integrated graphics machine. Enough said about that.

When I bought my car, I wanted a certain color that added 480 bucks to the cost, just for choosing the color. So, Though 150 (or 200) might be a bit steep for a new color on a computer, especially given that the iPods are the same price, I can accept that Apple chose to do this and think they will sell very well. Schools will not go for black because of price, but you can get the same power in white.

999...1099... Wow. Not a really big difference, but iBook...MacBook, A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Many times faster, larger, better screen, better apps (except no WP which is a bummer, older iBooks had AW), iSight...

The MB is 500 bucks more than a mini. For 500 bucks you get a far better CPU, a screen, iSight, a battery and PORTABILITY. A great deal.

Integrated graphics vs. a card... well, don't criticize until you actually see the machine in action, because you honestly don't know. People complained ad nauseum about the iPod's low video pixel point, but it is drop-dead great, even when thrown up on a TV. Persoanlly, I suspect that the graphics will be more than satisfactory for the majority of users. Others will move on to something else.

Some peope will complain about anything, but I think Apple has a real winner on their hands.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Originally posted by vineaMy suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.

Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.

All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.

All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.

The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.

Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.

I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.

Vinea

That's kinda my point on pricing. Many seem to think prices are going to come down in the future. I don' think so. Features will be added or specs get bumped up but prices stay the same or go up slightly.

Nice thought on the performance bar for systems. What does that mean for g4 users, if anything? In other words if a core solo won't cut it a year from now with Leopard, CS3 and new MS office, where does that leave current powerbook and iBook users?

Originally posted by Mr. H
Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled. [/B]

I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.

Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.

And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.

So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.

Originally posted by mark2005I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.

Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.

And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.

So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.

I don't want a confusing array of choices but the Macbook really only comes in 2 choices. The 1.8ghz and the 2.0ghz models. The black one doesn't really present an additional configuration IMO. The only difference between it and the $1200 white version is color and cost.

For everyone screaming, "$200 more for black!?!?", please take note that the black model also has an 80GB drive as opposed to the 60GB in the $1299 while model. It costs (an admittedly inflated) $50 to upgrade the white MacBook from 60GB to 80GB. That simple drive upgrade levels the specs between the middle and the top model.

Originally posted by dmwoganSeriously. Who cares about dedicated graphics cards. If you need that, you'll probably be getting a macbook pro b/c of the bigger screen anyways. Honestly, integrated graphics are fine. They save on power too. I'd take that.

Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.

Sacrificing Margin to gain Marketshare
Apple has categorically stated that they will NOT be sacrificing margins to gain marketshare. They have said this at least twice at quarterly conference calls. And it is a wise course of action, NOT lowering profits. Apple's shareholders react negatively when margins dip below the 23-25 percent range. To gain significant marketshare, they are working to sell Macs better in general. It is the slow way, but it is the only way they will be able to KEEP the share they gain.

Integrated Graphics for Gaming
Ya know, Doom 3 for the PC played just fine on my Mac mini dual core with BootCamp. No it was not set to super resolution, but most home PCs can't play the full resolution either (because most home PCs also have integrated graphics or low-end cards). Don't fall victim to the I wanna $4,000 computer for $1,200 mindset. Apple doesn't do loss leaders (see above).

Premium Pricing
I bought a black Macbook today and expect it in a week or so. Premium pricing is exactly what Apple needs to keep alive. Emotions and braggadocio matter. Who'd want a Jaguar if they were $9,000 (and built like they cost $9,000)? Might as well buy a Kia.

Originally posted by solsunMelgross, not trying to start a fight here, but seriously, it seems like you will say anything other than admitting that you were wrong?

I was one of the ones who predicted $1099 and was shot down by you and many others. I never said anything about processor speed. I simply said they will all be dual-core and include iSight, mag-safe connectors, latch, a remote control and the base model will cost $1099.

Of course they could have delivered a model at $999 by including a slower single-core processor and dropping some of the specs, but all signs (and rumors) were indicating that Apple was adding functionality and features, even to it's entry level machines..

AAPL typically always drops on announcement day and then rebounds to a higher price within a week. Today's drop is nothing un-usual.. The market is also reacting to the new Creative lawsuit.

$1099 is not too high, I'd be willing to bet that within a few months time, this will become Apple's best selling computer. However, I do agree that paying $150 extra for the color black is bit of a stretch to say the least.

Anyways, instead of just arguing for arguments sake, it's time to just admit that you were wrong and move on. No big deal..

What are you talking about? I NEVER said that Apple would come out with a $999 model!

What I did say, is that I hoped that Apple would come out with a $999 model. get your facts straight. I never say what price Apple will come out with something. I onlt say what I think would be a good idea, and I give reasons.

Well, Apple has been dropping for a while. They came partly back, but then dropped again. The short sellers are killing every rally.

Originally posted by vineaYou can post information that directly contradicts his statements and he'll still never admit to being wrong.

Like how Mini sales are poor, sales of Apple computers constantly fell after Jobs' return, etc...

Frankly, if you are an edu buyer looking at 10K units MSRP has very little bearing on the price you pay. You will not be paying $1M more than a similarly spec'd machine from Dell which as near as I can tell is the Latitude D520:

Originally posted by solsunI have to agree with you, this is the second time I've called him on being wrong and he somehow tries to twist the information to make it appear that he was right all along.. He'd definitely make a good lawyer! (no offense, Melgross)

Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?

Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.

I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.

e.g:

1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?

2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)

3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)

The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.

--The black looks great. I understand people's misgivings, but there is that certain Apple 'something' that makes it really work. You know, just very well thought out and of a piece.

--The magnetic latch is terrific. Just the right amount of force to open. Plus, I really dig the new little-space-to-slip-your-finger-in divot where the latch used to be.

--Glossy screen. I dunno. Could be a deal breaker for me. It does enhance apparent contrast and brightness, but..... reflections. Also, the glossy screen appears to reduce the angle of acceptable off axis viewing. I'll go with the "Apple should have offered us a choice" on this one. OTOH, I could see where there's a certain 'pop' factor that might work for certain buyers. They still have the iBooks on display, and the new screen is much brighter and more vivid.

Still: why not let us choose, ala the MBP?

--Keyboard. I dunno. Shorter travel, not my preference. Not terrible, by any means, just a little less positive feedback on a keystroke. In addition to being flatish, it sits in a little well, so the screen is well clear of it when closed.

--Two fingered track pad "right click" works great, just like you'd want it to. With two fingered scrolling, the track pad is a marvel of usability.

--The two MacBooks on display would go into a coma when the lid was closed. After eventually reviving (a solid three or four minutes of fruitless poking), they would accept no input (cursor moves but no click, ditto keyboard). The speculation was that the very recently released Intel firmware update had something to do with this, but I'm a little surprised they let these puppies out into the wild with such a glaring defect. Not exactly a confidence booster. And, of course, it kept happening over and over because people wanted to close the lid to check out the magnetic latch.

--Weirdly, a guy was handing out copies of the fresh off the presses AI article about how the hard-drive is user swappable. Excellent news, if true, but: Kasper? Was that you?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Originally posted by NauticalOh, come on! The price premium is there because Apple believes that many people are willing to pay more for that colour. Economics 101.

And Apple is right. I bet that I'm going to see a ton of these black Macbooks at my university's campus in September.

I'm interested to see one of these in person, because I'm not a fan of glossy screens. Otherwise the entry-level Macbook is perfect for my needs. I also suspect that the Mac Mini is going to receive an update shortly, or a price drop.

Originally posted by melgrossCut it out vinea. You know very well that I said that I hoped that Apple would have a $999 model, and how I thought they could do it. I never said that they would do it. Should do it, yes.

You said $1099 would be a hard sell. We will see. There seems to be some pent up demand. $100 does not yet appear to be a deal killer.

I was pointing out you were wrong about the Mini sales, that Apple sales were in constant decline since Jobs returned and lately about Apple inventing the modern windowing system and not Xerox.

You make reasoned opinions but sometimes follow it with some wildly general assertion as support that is easily verified...or not as the case may be. Then you get defensive. Sometimes this is amusing. Sometimes mildly annoying.

I have yet to see you say that you were mistaken about anything which adds to the amusement factor in debunking certain pronouncements you state as "fact" to support your positions.

Vinea

PS Investing in individual stocks...especially ones like Apple with a good amount of volatility results in rollercoaster rides and upset stomachs. Blaming short sellers for killing rallys is somewhat amusing. In a rally shorters can go into panic buying to limit losses that tends to magnify rallies. Hence the term short covering rallys.

Its the folks taking quick profits that tend to nip weak rallys. Shorters can't do that...they buy stock to cover their position in a potentially dangerous rally. They have no shares to sell into a rally.